Re: tuning questions

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Jack Coates <jack(at)lyris(dot)com>, Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: tuning questions
Date: 2003-12-05 17:26:05
Message-ID: 200312050926.05155.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

Jack,

> The frustrating thing is, we also have a UP P3-500 with 512M RAM and two
> IDE drives with the same PG install which is doing okay with this load
> -- still half the speed of MS-SQL2K, but usable. I'm at a loss.

Overall, I'm really getting the feeling that this procedure was optimized for
Oracle and/or MSSQL and is hitting some things that aren't such a good idea
for PostgreSQL. I highly suggest that you try using log_duration and
log_statement (and in 7.4 log_min_duration_statement) to try to locate which
particular statements are taking the longest.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2003-12-05 17:40:37 Re: request for feedback - read-only GUC variables,
Previous Message Larry Rosenman 2003-12-05 17:04:00 Re: 7.4.1 ... slight change of scheduale ...

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2003-12-05 17:28:30 Re: Slow UPADTE, compared to INSERT
Previous Message Mike C. Fletcher 2003-12-05 17:12:07 Re: Slow UPADTE, compared to INSERT